A Challenge To The Current Theory Of Consciousness

[nikolabeacon]

To answer the Question of Consciousness one first need to have right equotion On time. Einstein was saying something that really cannot be implied in real life. Some people are pretty sure that time t=0. Tesla Vortex of Time also says that time is 0 . And it that is Truth. Than we dont really have the term such as memory ( genetics) But only stimulus in an Unmoving Vortex of Time. It you dont use some language...where Does words and rules go when you "foget about it"?When there is no stimulus What is left??? And basically everything is Virtual or a by Product of Consciousness???

 

[mujuro]

Reminds me of Sam Harris and his tautological challenge to free will, which is about as useful to human activity as is arguing about the existence of a creator.

 

[Regina]

I could speculate even more saying that our brain may just be a kind of antenna or receptor tuned to our own consciousness which isn't inside our brain or body but rather a kind of field (probably electric) around us similar to those about whom Ray often speaks.
And the high metabolic activity of the brain could be used to maintain a coherence in this field while accessing it and using it.
That could account for the "aura" that some people claim to see and for telepathic feats achieved by people who might be able to tune to other's field of consciousness.
When death comes, the field is dissolved and return to the pool, available for another conscious being.
Pure speculation though, but I like the idea, I might have read it somewhere once but I can't remember!
Namaste

 

[Dhair]

This reminds me of Sam Harris' book Waking Up. He's a neuroscientist who pretty much freely admits that we really have no idea exactly where consciousness comes from. He seems to be much more open minded on the subject than anyone in the medical field would be, which is refreshing because he's highly intelligent and has some good ideas.

 

[Brother John]

Have you ever read "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes? He gives an alternative and congruent answer to questions like the above.

It was one of the best books I have Ever read. I found the first 2 chapters entirely unnecessary for me however as they were seemingly written only for academics. The rest of the book was terrific and gave me an idea of human history both beautiful and disturbing. His ideas on the mind were really good.
Brother John

 

[Waynish]

I remember Ray wrote about a chess champion in England who had such large ventricles that his brain looked like the inside rind of a coconut. Despite this "handicap", the chess guy was not only conscious but obviously had a pretty high IQ. The current theory on memory formation and brain development cannot really explain a case like that.
This more recent case study involved a man with more than 90% of his brain missing due to the chronic hydrocephalos. According to neuroscience currently taught in school, that man should not even be conscious because not only was most of his brain missing but his brainstem was also affected and partially atrophied. And yet, the man is conscious and well and has a decent IQ of 75 allowing him to have a family and function socially.
It seems that we still don't know much about how the brain functions, and that brain size and number of neurons is really not the determining factor of consciousness (and maybe even intelligence). Judging by the this man's brain size, organisms with much smaller brain than ours are probably just as intelligent and conscious as we are. This is something people like Noam Chomsky (and most neurosurgeons) would rather not think about.

A civil servant missing most of his brain challenges our most basic theories of consciousness

"...“Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who’s missing 90% of his neurons, still exhibits normal behavior,” says Cleeremans. A theory of consciousness that depends on “specific neuroanatomical features” (the physical make-up of the brain) would have trouble explaining such cases.

Yes, it is a very interesting case - but it doesn't mean he's missing 90% of his neurons. Couldn't they he be lacking lots of fluid - and therefore, shrunken?

 

[Owen B]

I remember Ray wrote about a chess champion in England who had such large ventricles that his brain looked like the inside rind of a coconut. Despite this "handicap", the chess guy was not only conscious but obviously had a pretty high IQ. The current theory on memory formation and brain development cannot really explain a case like that.
This more recent case study involved a man with more than 90% of his brain missing due to the chronic hydrocephalos. According to neuroscience currently taught in school, that man should not even be conscious because not only was most of his brain missing but his brainstem was also affected and partially atrophied. And yet, the man is conscious and well and has a decent IQ of 75 allowing him to have a family and function socially.
It seems that we still don't know much about how the brain functions, and that brain size and number of neurons is really not the determining factor of consciousness (and maybe even intelligence). Judging by the this man's brain size, organisms with much smaller brain than ours are probably just as intelligent and conscious as we are. This is something people like Noam Chomsky (and most neurosurgeons) would rather not think about.

A civil servant missing most of his brain challenges our most basic theories of consciousness

"...“Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who’s missing 90% of his neurons, still exhibits normal behavior,” says Cleeremans. A theory of consciousness that depends on “specific neuroanatomical features” (the physical make-up of the brain) would have trouble explaining such cases.

This example that Haidut gives here reminds me of the recent well-publicized case of a North Carolina neurosurgeon named Alexander who contracted a serious bacterial infection (e.coli?) and gradually lapsed into a coma. He was pronounced medically brain dead.

However, he recovered from the infection and awakened from the coma. After regaining full consciousness he realized that he had had a lengthy (?) near death experience. Alexander reported the experience of very profound spiritual insight that shook him to his core. This experience has stayed with him and continues to strongly influence his life. I think he has written a couple of books.

His experience and his writing were predictably received with much scepticism and even derision. However, no matter whether you choose to disagree with the expressed content of his experience or not, it seems as if there was an awful lot of "something" going on in a brain that was declared medically and scientifically dead.

 

[Xisca]

I theorize that the development of the frontal cortex with all it's benefits also unplugged humans from something they need. I think we are not fully evolved in the areas of biological structure and functions.

I am talking about this all the time when I speak about somatic experiencing, we have to work more with the autonomic brain, which is what our ancesters and still some people, are doing. The cortex can block part of the natural rythm of the autonomic brain. Animals do not have to deal with this problem! We can still do the same, but it needs some learning / teaching.

 

[Xisca]

It seems that we still don't know much about how the brain functions,

Dive into reasearch about ANS! I feel better to stay at behaviour level, as all can be seen and felt easily. Details are delt with by the cortex level...
We can share with words, but the experience is only at felt sense level.

We have very little memory of when we were babies.
Memory = consciousness. This leads people to believe that less-developed species are not conscious.
consciousness is a completely internal, private thing.

Yes we have memory, but not with words.
consciousness is so personally felt that it is difficult to talk about it.
But it exists and can be shared, as it is possible to FEEL it from another person. It is very subtle, but no doubt when you have aditified what it is, among all the different sensations that we can feel.
But consciousness is not only this, it is the whole, that is why we can have more, thanks to our cortex, if the cortex does not take over. Our brain is triune.

why did we evolve an integrated human consciousness if, as some say, the conscious experience of our actions happens after the decision to act a certain way has been made by the "unconscious" parts of our brain?

Yes, this showed in real experiences. But this does not mean that the cortex has nothing to do, as it has the power to integrate the whole stuff. The problem is when we want to control all with this part of the brain. The cortex is a very good secretary for the unspoken language of the felt-sense! When you think something, just look for the underground, our cortex is TRANSLATING something that comes from the physiology.

It has been measured that there is a half second between a decision for a movement and the pre-movement zone in the brain... But we do not notice.

 

[Marg]

How does an autistic genius savant's brain function, which was so well illustrated in the movie 'Rain Man'?

What a tremendous gulf exists between the compartmentalized, concentrated genius; be it artistic, musical, mathematical, etc... and a complete inability of this savant to function in the world of everday life.